- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
Honestly a bit scary. Anyway, there was this article about Iran producing cheap missiles with state owned factories and simply drastically cheaper so they are winning the war of attrition by a wide margin. If Russia can achieve that too then their victory against NATO in Ukraine is assured. Not sure about the level of corruption in Ukraine vs Russia though.
What makes you think there’s less corruption in the west than in Russia exactly? For example, lobbying is legal in US and Canada that’s legalized corruption.
I don’t think that, of course what you really want to know is the overhead = profit margin + waste + corruption. It’s clear now that neoliberal countries won’t be able to win a war of attrition against a serious enemy. But Russia has it’s own oligarchs and corruption to deal with. Hopefully Russia is nationalizing all weapon production.
Weapons production has always been nationalized in Russia, that never changed since the soviet days. That’s one of the reasons why Russian military industry outproduces all of NATO right now. Russia has plenty of problems to deal with to be sure, but in terms of actually getting things done and having real domestic industry, it’s far ahead of the west.
Neat
Russia is reshaping the future of warfare in real time, building artificial intelligence-enabled command and control and, it appears, deploying fully autonomous weapons without the ethical constraints that govern Western militaries.
off to a great start
These changes came not only from professional engineers but from students working at a production site near Yelabuga, in Tatarstan, around 620 miles east of Moscow. The factory there is effectively a school and the school is a research and development lab. The line between education and weapons development has deliberately blurred.
that’s interesting… but the source is radio free europe lol
The Pentagon must also open itself more fully to nontraditional vendors not just in hardware but in software and training. Drone warfare moves too fast for legacy adaptation cycles. Russia demonstrates that even a large, centralized military can harness decentralized innovation when it gives civilian engineers and operators room to adapt together, and then scales up what works. The United States starts from a far stronger innovation base line than Russia but it lacks the institutional will to make the most of it.
we gotta privatize the military
Despite this sort of stuff, it’s surprisingly sober for a mainstream western publication. Especially after years of claiming that Russian military is falling apart.
western media is just doing the “the enemy is both weak and strong” trope. they need to manufacture consent for the trillions in MIC spending + economic austerity, so obviously they are going to fearmonger about Russia now.
Except that they’re also telling a lot of truths there. Russian army has actual experience with drone warfare, and NATO doctrine is basically obsolete now as has been seen both in Ukraine and in Iran. That’s a huge power shift that nobody before 2022 expected.
deleted by creator
Boycott, Deadvertise, Unsubscribe, No Links: https://newyorkwarcrimes.com/
Does this site host the OP article? The archive link is not working for me unfortunately.
No it’s a blog
Ah thanks. Anyways, archive.ph is up again.
Refusing to engage with bourgeois media because it contains bourgeois bias is ironically the most liberal thing we can do. We’d be engaging in retreatism by an echo chamber rather than confronting the dominant narrative head on.
If we discarded every source that had a liberal or capitalist slant, we would effectively have to stop reading 99% of Western media. We would be blinding ourselves to the very mechanisms we are trying to dismantle. We are adults with functioning brains who possess the capacity for critical analysis. We should be able to read a piece of liberal slop, identify the ideological framing, strip it away, and analyze the material conditions they are reporting on or trying to obscure.
From a dialectical perspective, you need to read media like the NYT precisely because it is the mouthpiece of the ruling class. It tells you exactly what capital is thinking and what they are afraid of. You cannot effectively dismantle an argument if you refuse to understand its internal structure and logic.
Running away from information because it doesn’t align with your worldview is what liberals do when they retreat into their MSNBC bubbles. As socialists, we should be secure enough in our own position to read sources we abhor, understand them, and approach their claims from a position of knowledge. Ruthless criticism of all that exists includes reading the NYT.
I sympathize with people who don’t want to give clicks to certain websites. But you included an archive link. Imo that should be sufficient. Otherwise how are we supposed to know what the enemy’s media are writing if we can’t read it?
Honestly, even the whole thing with boycotting sites and stuff always felt really infantile to me. It’s just another form of trying to vote problems away.
Also every well-known Marxist ever (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, etc.) has engaged with capitalist sources at some point in their lives, and it will not change anytime soon because some events are obscure and unfortunately have little coverage outside of bourgeois sources, have some anti-establishment evidence disproving some anti-communist propaganda in spite of the other bourgeois qualities present, or are necessary for us to criticize. How does one expect to develop their Marxist analysis and application skills if they just stick to the Marxist texts?
Marx read library books from capitalists and learning English in the process after Engels suggested him the source. Like most of Conditions of Working Class in England is capitalist sources. Lenin said Marxism should never be dogmatism, it’s infantile idealism
So, your saying that boycotts and divestment are ineffective?
There’s and archive link, the notion of boycotts/divestment is irrelevant.
For the most part they are because they don’t lead to any systemic change. It’s a form of voting, so you’re still operating within the rules of a rigged system. Our focus should be on challenging the system itself instead of fighting its symptoms.
I’m more or less in the middle on this, but i think calling it a divestment is a bit overstating things, don’t you? It’s just a website, it’s not that serious. We weren’t buying their newspapers or signing up to their subscriptions.
Websites depend on views to generate advertising dollars. Every click puts money in their pockets. If the NYTimes or any news site, lacks view, they will change their editorial policy.
Unfortunately that’s often not how these things work. Sometimes the ideological function of bourgeois media takes precedence over the profit motive. They receive enough funding from billionaires that they can afford to alienate a portion of their readers.
Look at CBS. The Zionist takeover has tanked their numbers, but they will nonetheless persist with their course and even double down, because it serves an important function for the Zionist propaganda machine that makes it worth losing a part of its audience.
So no, you will not induce NYT to change their ideology by not reading their articles.
This is just “vote with your wallet” repackaged with progressive language. Consumers don’t control the market. Consumers do not dictate corporate practices. That is liberal fiction.
You should stop using internet because ICANN is funded by CIA and Mossad. But let’s purity test dumb shit.
they can be effective in some contexts, but idk what boycotting a newspaper is supposed to accomplish.
Boycotting and divestment might bring down the New York Times, but then what? Another New York Times will take its place.
That’s a pyrrhic victory, and a pyrrhic victory isn’t.
Boycotts are a personal choice. To believe boycotts can make a difference is at best idealism and at worst individualism, and if they can’t make a difference then there’s no point organizing a strategy around them and our energy is better spent elsewhere. Boycott if you like - even I do it - but understand that it has limitations and is not an effective tool for challenging capital.
